 |
RE: [RC] weed free - David LeBlancTruman said: The "control of non-native" argument seems to be carried to the extreme today. A prime example is fescue - sold as good old Kentucky 31. It is now classified by the Feds as an invasive species because it was brought over by the British in the colonial days. OK, and we can and should have as a country an ongoing debate about how to best deal with changes. I'm not going to take the position that the Feds do nearly anything right all the time. I would suspect there's more to it than only the fact that it was brought in from Europe. But I'd like to bring the discussion back to us losing trail. If we're losing trail because there's a perception, apparently not backed by research, that horses spread weeds, then we need to get some research to find out what's really going on. I've read most of the web sites that are cited earlier in the thread LAST time this came around on ridecamp (maybe time before last - it comes around a lot), and they're arguing based on emotion. It's traditional to use horses, etc. Those are losing arguments. It's traditional to dump raw sewage into streams, rivers, and the ocean, and I don't think we ought to keep doing that. We understand the reasons why we shouldn't do that, and we have a pretty good handle on how much of what a body of water can absorb. So we need to understand what the impacts are of horses. We need to know these as facts backed by real research. Then we can make rational decisions. Horses _do_ have an impact. Couple too much traffic with improperly built trails and the right soil conditions, and sure enough, erosion is a serious problem. We build a lot of bridges and do a lot of trail work up here to correct those problems. Once we understand the facts, then we can make appropriate decisions - maybe there are places we shouldn't take horses. Maybe there's other places that shouldn't get more than 25 horses per day, and you should have to get a permit. Then there's places we can run hundreds of horses through without a lot of damage. I'm approaching this problem as an _Environmental Engineer_. Emotional arguments don't do the tree-huggers much good, either. Greenpeace and some of the other more theatrical groups only serve to draw attention to things. What really advances the environmental cause, and does so correctly, is facts. Armed with facts, you can go to court and make changes. If we are also armed with facts, then we'll know whether we're being unfairly deprived. If we are, then we can challenge these decisions in court and get some changes made. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|